Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
The “power-property” concept: Pro et contra
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-5-121-135
Abstract
The analysis of the “power-property” concept and its critics shows that the question in issue is not the phenomenon itself but its intensity in a certain historical period in a certain country. Therefore, methods of theoretical history are necessary for positive knowledge accumulation in Eastern historical studies of problems of laissez-faire and dirigisme during the transition to modern economic growth. It enables to overcome the metaphysical character of reasoning, which is especially typical for the Marxists. Their conceptual framework, however, should not be applied by default — only as a metatheoretical basis for forthcoming research. The paper points out another range of issues related to both “materialistic” and “institutionalist” explanations of the “power-property” phenomenon; it is suggested to separate such issues as the origin of the phenomenon and its further reproduction. The argumentation is based on the data of the historiography of China, as well as on the key concepts of historical sociology relating to the studies of the cyclic dynamics of traditional societies.
Keywords
power-property,
the East,
modernization,
modern economic growth,
Marxism,
materialism,
institutionalism
JEL: B 20, B 40, N 10, P 00, P 20
About the Author
D. V. Trubitsyn
http://zabgu.ru/
Transbaikalian State University
Russian Federation
Transbaikalian State University
Russian Federation
Dmitry V. Trubitsyn, Dr. Sci. (Social Philosophy), Professor
Chita
References
1. Acemoglu D., Robinson J. (2016). Why nations fail: Тhe origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Moscow: AST. (In Russian).
2. Alaev L. B., Ashrafyan K. Z., Ivanov N. I. (2000). The history of the East, Vol. 3. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura. (In Russian).
3. Alaev L. B., Ashrafyan K. Z. (eds.) (2002). The history of the East, Vol. 2. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura. (In Russian).
4. Aristotle (1983). Works, Vol. 4. Moscow: Mysl. (In Russian).
5. Berezhnoy I. V., Volchik V. V. (2008). Research of the economic evolution of the power-property institution. Moscow: Unity-Dana. (In Russian).
6. Bessonova O. E. (1999). Razdatok: Institutional theory of the economic development of Russia. Novosibirsk: Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russian).
7. Vasilyev L. S. (1982). The phenomenon of power-property. The problem of the typology of pre-capitalist structures. In: Types of social relations in the East in the Middle Ages. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 60—99. (In Russian).
8. Vasiliev L. S. (2003). History of the East, Vol. 1. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola. (In Russian).
9. Weber M. (2017). The economic ethics of world religions: Comparative sociology of religion. Confucianism and Taoism. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal. (In Russian).
10. Gaydar E. T. (1997). State and evolution. Moscow: Norma. (In Russian).
11. Ivanov N. A. (ed.) (1993). The phenomenon of Eastern despotism: Тhe structure of governance and power. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian).
12. Kirdina S. G. (2000). Institutional matrices and development of Russia. Moscow: Teis. (In Russian).
13. Kolganov A. (2017). To the critique of the “power-property” concept. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 7, pp. 79—95. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2017-7-79-95
14. Marx K., Engels F. (1957). Works, Vol. 9. Moscow: Gospolitozdat. (In Russian).
15. Marx K., Engels F. (1959). Works, Vol. 13. Moscow: Gospolitozdat. (In Russian).
16. Marx K., Engels F. (1960). Works, Vol. 23. Moscow: Gospolitozdat. (In Russian).
17. Marx K., Engels F. (1962). Works, Vol. 28. Moscow: Gospolitozdat. (In Russian).
18. Nureev R. M., Latov Y. V. (2007). Competition of Western institutions of private property with the Eastern institutions of power-property in Russia in 1990—2000s. In: E. G. Yasin (ed.). Proceedings of the VIII International academic conference “Modernization of economy and social development”, Vol. 2. Moscow: HSE Publ., pp. 65—76. (In Russian).
19. Nureev R., Runov A. (2002). Russia: Is deprivatization inevitable? (The phenomenon of power-property in historical perspective). Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 6, pp. 10—31. (In Russian).
20. Pliskevich N. (2008). The power-propertysystem in contemporary Russia. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 5, pp. 119—126. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2008-5-119-126
21. Pliskevich N. М. (2018). Archaic paternalism as an organic part of the “power-property” system. Obshchestvennye Nauki i Sovremennost, No. 1, pp. 17—32. (In Russian).
22. Rozov N. S. (ed.) (2001). Elaboration and approbation of the method of theoretical history. Novosibirsk: Nauka. (In Russian).
23. Rozov N. S. (2009). Historical macrosociology: Methodology and methods. Novosibirsk: NGU. (In Russian).
24. Smith A. (2007). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Moscow: Eksmo. (In Russian).
25. Yakobson V. A. (ed.) (2002). The history of the East, Vol. 1. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura. (In Russian)..
26. Wittfogel K. A. (1957). Oriental despotism: A comparative study of total power. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Trubitsyn D.V. The “power-property” concept: Pro et contra. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2022;(5):121-135. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-5-121-135
Views:
552
Email this article 
